Time is the evolutionist's magic wand. Fairy tales come in many forms! Many accept mere theories and speculations as
a scientific fact, and they think that God's Word is to be tested by the teachings of "science falsely so called" (1 Tim.6:20).
What is this evolution doctrine which inspires so much faith in its disciples?
How has it turned great scientists into dogmatic opponents of any other
viewpoint? Many evolutionary scientists have united their professional influence
to forbid any classroom instruction contrary to their own views. Does the theory
of evolution merit this kind of fanatical support, which would silence all
opposing ideas? When religious people take such a position, they are called
bigots, but scientists seem to escape that charge. In February of 1977, nearly
200 members of the nation's academic community sent letters to school boards
across the United States, urging that no alternate ideas on origins be permitted
in classrooms.
This indicates that the evolutionists are feeling the threat of a rising
revolt against the stereotyped, contradictory versions of their theory. Many
students are looking for honest answers to their questions about the origin and
purpose of life. For the first time, the stale traditions of evolution are
having to go on the defensive. But let's take a look at what they have to
defend. Then you will understand why these evolutionary scientists are people of
such extraordinary faith, and why they are so fearful of facing competition at
the school level.
How does the evolutionist explain the existence of that first one-celled
animal from which all life forms supposedly evolved? For many years the medieval
idea of spontaneous generation was the accepted explanation. According to
Webster, spontaneous generation is "the generation of living from nonliving
matter ... [it is taken] from the belief, now abandoned, that organisms found in
putrid organic matter arose spontaneously from it."
Simply stated, this means that under the proper conditions of temperature,
time, place, etc., decaying matter simply turns into organic life. This
simplistic idea dominated scientific thinking until 1846, when Louis Pasteur
completely shattered the theory by his experiments. He exposed the whole concept
as utter foolishness. Under controlled laboratory conditions, in a semi-vacuum,
no organic life ever emerged from decaying, nonliving matter. Reluctantly it was
abandoned as a valid scientific issue. Today no reputable scientist tries to
defend it on a demonstrable basis. That is why Webster says it is "now
abandoned." It never has been and never can be demonstrated in the test tube. No
present process is observed that could support the idea of spontaneous
generation. Obviously, if spontaneous generation actually did take place in the
distant past to produce the first spark of life, it must be assumed that the
laws which govern life had to be completely different from what they are now.
But wait a minute! This won't work either, because the whole evolutionary theory
rests upon the assumption that conditions on the earth have remained uniform
throughout the ages.
Do you begin to see the dilemma of the evolutionists in explaining that first
amoebae, or monad, or whatever formed the first cell of life? If it sprang up
spontaneously from no previous life, it contradicts a basic law of nature which
forms the foundation of the entire theory. Yet, without believing in spontaneous
generation, the evolutionist would have to acknowledge something other than
natural forces at work - in other words, God. How do they get around this
dilemma?
Dr. George Wald, Nobel Prize winner of Harvard University, states it as
cryptically and honestly as an evolutionist can: "One has only to contemplate
the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a
living organism is impossible. Yet here we are - as a result, I believe
spontaneous generation." Scientific American, August, 1954.
That statement by Dr. Wald demonstrates a much greater faith than a religious
creationist can muster. Notice that the great evolutionary scientist says it
could not have happened. It was impossible. Yet he believes it did happen. What
can we say to that kind of faith? At least the creationist believes that God was
able to speak life into existence. His is not a blind faith in something that he
concedes to be impossible.
So here we are, face to face with the first contradiction of evolution with a
basic law of science. In order to sustain his humanistic explanation of the
origin of life, he must accept the exploded, unscientific theory of spontaneous
generation. And the big question is this: Why is he so violently opposed to the
spontaneous generation spoken of in the Bible? A miracle of creation is required
in either case. Either God did it by divine fiat, or blind, unintelligent nature
produced Wald's impossible act. Let any reasonable mind contemplate the
alternatives for a moment. Doesn't it take more faith to believe that chance
could produce life than it does to believe infinite intelligence could produce
it?
Why did Dr. Wald say that it was impossible for life to result from
spontaneous generation? That was not an easy concession for a confirmed
evolutionist to make. His exhaustive search for a scientific explanation ended
in failure, as it has for all other evolutionary scientists, and he had the
courage to admit it. But he also had an incredible faith to believe in it even
though it was a scientific impossibility. A Christian who confessed to such a
faith would be labeled as naive and gullible. What a difference the cloak of
higher education makes upon our easily impressed minds! How much simpler and
sweeter the faith which accepts the inspired account: "In the beginning God
created the heaven and the earth." Genesis 1:1.
What would be involved in the accidental development of a single living cell?
The fact is that the most elementary form of life is more complicated than any
manmade thing on earth. The entire complex of New York City is less complicated
than the makeup of the simplest microscopic cell. It is more than ridiculous to
talk about its chance production. Scientists themselves assure us that the
structure of a single cell is unbelievably intricate. The chance for a proper
combination of molecules into amino acids, and then into proteins with the
properties of life is entirely unrealistic. American Scientist magazine made
this admission in January of 1955:
"From the probability standpoint, the ordering of the present environment
into a single amino acid molecule would be utterly improbable in all the time
and space available for the origin of terrestrial life."
A Swiss mathematician, Charles Eugene Guye, actually computes the odds
against such an occurrence at only one chance in 10(160). That means 10
multiplied by itself 160 times, a number too large even to articulate. Another
scientist expressed it this way:
"The amount of matter to be shaken together to produce a single molecule of
protein would be millions of times greater than that in the whole universe. For
it to occur on earth alone would require many, almost endless, billions of
years." The Evidence of God in an Expanding Universe, p. 23.
How can we explain the naive insistence of evolutionists to believe something
so extremely out of character for their scientific background? And how can we
harmonize the normally broad-minded tolerance of the educated, with the narrow
bigotry exhibited by many evolutionary scientists in trying to suppress opposing
points of view? The obvious explanation would seem to be rooted in the
desperation of such evolutionists to retain their reputation as the sole
dispensers of dogmatic truth. To acknowledge a superior wisdom has been too long
cultivated by the evolutionist community. They have repeated their assumptions
for so long in support of their theories that they have started accepting them
as facts. No one objects to their assuming whatever they want to assume, but to
assume happenings that go contrary to all scientific evidence and still call it
science is being dishonest.
Now let's look at a second basic evolutionary teaching which is contrary to
scientific law. One of the most necessary parts of evolution, which is supposed
to provide the power for changing the amoebae into a man, is mutation. This
refers to abnormal changes in the organism which are assumed to be caused by
chemical changes in the genes themselves. The genes are the hereditary factors
within the chromosomes of each species. Every species has its own particular
number of chromosomes which contain the genes. Within every human being are 46
chromosomes containing an estimated 100,000 genes, each one of which is able to
affect in some way the size, color, texture, or quality of the individual. The
assumption is that these genes, which provide the inherited characteristics we
get from our ancestors, occasionally become affected by unusual pairing,
chemical damage, or other influences, causing them to produce an unusual change
in one of the offspring. This is referred to as a mutation. Through gradual
changes wrought in the various species through mutation, it is assumed by the
evolutionists that the amoebae turned into an invertebrate, which became an
amphibian, then a reptile, a quadruped, an ape form, and finally a man. In other
words, the species are not fixed in the eyes of the evolutionists. Families are
forever drifting over into another higher form as time progresses. This means
that all the fossil records of animal history should reveal an utter absence of
precise family boundaries. Everything should be in the process of changing into
something else - with literally hundreds of millions of half-developed fish
trying to become amphibious, and reptiles halfway transformed into birds, and
mammals looking like half-apes or half-men.
Now everybody knows that instead of finding those billions of confused family
fossils, the scientists have found exactly the opposite. Not one single
drifting, changing life form has been studied. Everything stays within the
well-defined limits of its own basic kind and absolutely refuses to cooperate
with the demands of modern evolutionists. Most people would give up and change
their theory when faced with such a crushing, deflating blow, but not the
evolutionist! He still searches for that illusive missing link which could at
least prove that he hasn't been 100 percent wrong.
But let's look at the vehicle which the evolutionists have depended upon to
provide the possibility of the drastic changes required by their theory. Sir
Julian Huxley, a principal spokesman for evolution, said this:
"Mutation provides the raw material of evolution." Again he said, "Mutation
is the ultimate sources of all...heritable variation." Evolution in Action, p.
38.
Professor Ernst Mayr, another leader of the evolutionists, made this
statement:
"Yet it must not be forgotten that mutation is the ultimate source of all
genetic variation found in natural populations and the only raw material
available for natural selection to work on." Animal Species and Evolution, p.
170.
Please keep this clearly in mind: Evolutionists say that mutation is
absolutely essential to provide the inexorable upgrading of species which
changed the simpler forms into more complex forms. BUT - the scientific fact is
that mutation could NEVER accomplish what evolution demands of it, for several
reasons. As all scientists agree, mutations are very rare. Huxley guesses that
only about one in a hundred thousand, is a mutant. Secondly, when they do occur,
they are almost certain to be harmful or deadly to the organism. In other words,
the vast majority of such mutations lead toward extinction instead of evolution;
they make the organism worse instead of better. Huxley admits: "The great
majority of mutant genes are harmful in their effect on the organism." Ibid. p.
39.
Other scientists, including Darwin himself, conceded that most mutants are
recessive and degenerative; therefore, they would actually be eliminated by
natural selection rather than effect any significant improvement in the
organism. Professor G. G. Simpson, one of the elite spokesmen for evolution,
writes about multiple, simultaneous mutations and reports that the mathematical
likelihood of getting good evolutionary results would occur only once in 274
billion years! And that would be assuming 100 million individuals reproducing a
new generation every day! He concludes by saying:
"Obviously...such a process has played no part whatever in evolution." The
Major Features of Evolution, p. 96.
Does this sound sort of confusing to you? They say mutation is necessary to
make the changes required by their theory, yet they have to confess that it is
scientifically impossible for multiple mutations to make the changes. This is
too typical of the puzzling twists and turns made by our evolutionist friends in
their efforts to uphold an exploded theory. So the second point of contradiction
with true science has been established.
Mutations, of course, do effect minor changes within the basic kinds, but
those changes are limited, never producing a new family. They can explain many
of the varieties of both plant and animals but can never explain the creation of
basic kinds as required by evolution.
Since we have discovered that the fossil record gives no support to the idea
of species gradually changing into other species, let us see if fossil evidence
is in harmony with the Bible. Ten times in the book of Genesis we read God's
decree concerning the reproduction of His creatures - "after its kind." The word
"kind" refers to species, or families. Each created family was to produce only
its own kind. This forever precludes the drifting, changing process required by
organic evolution where one species turns into another.
Take note that God did not say there could be no changes within the family.
He did not create all the varieties of dogs, cats, horses, etc. in the very
beginning. There was only a male and female of each species, and many changes
have since occurred to produce a wide assortment of varieties within the family.
But please keep it straight in your mind that cats have always remained cats,
dogs are still dogs, and men are still men. Mutation has only been responsible
for producing a new variety of the same species, but never originating another
new kind. Selective breeding has also brought tremendous improvements such as
hornless cattle, white turkeys, and seedless oranges, but all the organisms
continue to reproduce exactly as God decreed at Creation - after its kind.
The "common ancestor" that evolution demands has never existed. There is not
a "missing link." Man and monkeys are supposed to stem from the same animal
ancestry! Even chimpanzees and many monkey groups vary tremendously. Some are
smart, others dumb. Some have short tails and some long. Some have no tails at
all. Their teeth vary in number. A few have thumbs and others do not. Their
genes are different. Their blood is different. Their chromosomes don't jibe.
Interestingly enough, apes only breed with apes, chimpanzees with chimpanzees,
and monkeys with monkeys.
But when we start comparing humans with monkeys, we get even more impossible
differences than those among the simian types. In fact, these differences
constitute another unanswerable support for the Bible rule of "after its kind."
The fact that some monkeys can be trained to smoke a pipe, ride a scooter, or
even hoist a test tube in a laboratory does not prove that scientists are
evolved animals, or that monkeys are retarded, developing humans.
It has already been stated that evolutionists expected the fossil record to
support their theory of species changes. Their doctrine demanded vast numbers of
scaly reptiles transforming their scales into feathers and their front feet into
wings. Other reptiles supposedly should be changing into fur-bearing quadrupeds.
Did they find those thousands of multi-changing creatures? Not one! No matter
what particular strata they sifted through, all the fossils were easily
recognized and classified within their own families, just as God decreed. If the
evolutionary doctrine were true, the strata would be teeming with hundreds of
millions of transition forms with combination features of two or more species.
Not only so, but there would have to be millions upon millions of observable
living links right now in the process of turning into a higher form. Darwin
confessed:
"There are two or three million species on earth. A sufficient field one
might think for observation; but it must be said today that in spite of all the
evidence of trained observers, not one change of the species to another is on
record." Life and Letters, Vol. 3, p. 25.
How interesting! Then why insist that it had to be that way? This is one of
the marvels of those who cling to a traditional theory.
Even the most ancient fossil forms in the lowest fossil beds have stubbornly
retained the same features of their modern counterparts, and it is amusing to
listen to the exclamations of surprise by the evolutionists. The creationist is
not surprised at all. His Bible told him it would be that way, and he hasn't
been forced to puzzle over contradictory evidence.
Another frustration for the poor evolutionist is the strange case of the
empty strata. As one digs deep into the earth, one layer or stratum after
another is revealed. Often we can see these layers clearly exposed in the side
of a mountain or roadbed cut. Geologists have given names to the succession of
strata which pile one on top of another. Descending into Grand Canyon for
example, one moves downward past the Mississippi, Devonian, Cambrian, etc., as
they have been tagged by the scientists.
Now here is the perplexity for the evolutionists: The Cambrian is the last
stratum of the descending levels that has any fossils in it. All the lower
strata below the Cambrian have absolutely no fossil record of life other than
some single-celled types such as bacteria and algae. Why not? The Cambrian layer
is full of all the major kinds of animals found today except the vertebrates. In
other words, there is nothing primitive about the structure of these most
ancient fossils known to man. Essentially, they compare with the complexity of
current living creatures. But the big question is: Where are their ancestors?
Where are all the evolving creatures that should have led up to these highly
developed fossils? According to the theory of evolution, the Precambrian strata
should be filled with more primitive forms of these Cambrian fossils in the
process of evolving upward.
Darwin confessed in his book, Origin of the Species: "To the question why we
do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest
periods prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfactory answer...the
case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid
argument against the views here entertained." p. 309.
How amazing! Darwin admitted having no way to defend his theory, but he still
would not adjust his theory to meet the unanswerable arguments against it.
Many other evolutionary scientists have expressed similar disappointment and
frustration. Dr. Daniel Axelrod of the University of California calls it: "One
of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution." Science, July 4, l958.
Dr. Austin Clark of the U.S. National Museum wrote concerning the Cambrian
fossils: "Strange as it may seem ... mollusks were mollusks just as unmistakably
as they are now." The New Evolution: Zoogenesis, p. 101.
Drs. Marshall Kay and Edwin Colbert of Columbia University marveled over the
problem in these words: "Why should such complex organic forms be in rocks about
600 million years old and be absent or unrecognized in the records of the
preceding two billion years?...If there has been evolution of life, the absence
of the requisite fossils in the rocks older than Cambrian is puzzling."
Stratigraphy and Life History, p. 102.
George Gaylord Simpson, the "Crown Prince of Evolution", summarized it: "The
sudden appearance of life is not only the most puzzling feature of the whole
fossil record but also its greatest apparent inadequacy." The Evolution of Life,
p. 144.
In the face of these forced admissions of failure to find supporting
scientific evidence, how can these men of science continue to press so
dogmatically for their shaky views? No wonder they fight to keep students from
hearing the opposing arguments. Their positions would crumble under the
impartial investigation of honest research.
The absence of Precambrian fossils points to one great fact, unacceptable to
the evolutionists - a sudden creative act of God which brought all the major
creatures into existence at the same time. Their claims that creationism is
unscientific are made only to camouflage their own lack of true evidence. The
preponderance of physical scientific data is on the side of creation, not
evolution.
The subject of strata beds leads into the interesting question of how these
layers were formed, and why the evolutionists have guesstimated their age in the
billions of years. The dating of those layers has been done on the basis of the
theory of uniformity. This theory assumes that all the natural processes at work
in the past have operated exactly as they do today. In other words, the creation
of those strata can only be explained on the basis of what we see happening in
the world now. Scientists must calculate how long it takes for sedimentation to
build a foot-deep stratum. Then that age is assigned to any 12-inch layer, no
matter how deeply located within the earth.
Is that a valid assumption to make? Have all the natural forces of the past
been just what we can demonstrate and understand today? How naive and conceited
to compel ages past to conform to our limited observation and experience! We can
assume what we please, but it proves absolutely nothing except our own
gullibility. The Bible explains very graphically about a Flood which ravaged the
face of this earth, covering the highest mountains and completely destroying all
plant and animal life outside the ark. The destructive action of the Deluge is
expressed by these words in the Bible:
"The same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the
windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and
forty nights." Genesis 7:11, 12.
The existence of those strata can be scientifically accounted for in perfect
harmony with the Bible record. The universal Flood of Genesis provides a much
more reasonable explanation of the strata than evolution's speculations. As the
waters receded from the earth, powerful tides and currents carved out the great
canyons in a short time. Layers of debris, according to the specific weight,
were laid down, compressing plant and animal life into a compact seam or
stratum. Only thus can we explain the vast oil reserves and coal beds around the
world. These are the result of vegetation and animal bodies being buried under
extreme heat and pressure. No such process of fossilization is taking place
today. No oil or coal is forming by present natural forces at work. Uniformity
fails here.
The fact is, there had to be a gigantic cataclysmic overturn of nature,
killing and burying millions of tons of plant and animal life. The position of
some fossils standing upright through one or more strata indicates that the
process was not slow or age long. The material had to be deposited quickly
around the body of the animal, or it could not have remained in its erect
position. Millions of fish were buried by the flood, many of them contorted as
though suddenly overtaken by a phenomenal force. Marine fossils have been
recovered from the highest mountain ranges, and a check list on other scientific
evidences points to a universal deluge over the entire planet.
"Natural selection" is a coined phrase of the evolutionist to describe the
survival of the fittest. Simply stated, it is the natural process which enables
the strongest of each generation to survive and the weaker, more poorly adjusted
ones, to die out. The assumption of evolution is that since only the strongest
survive to father the next generation, the species will gradually improve, even
advancing into other more highly developed states on the evolutionary scale.
Darwin believed that natural selection was the most important factor in the
development of his theory. Many of the top teachers of evolution today are
hopelessly at odds on the question of how vital it is. Sir Julian Huxley
believes in it, as this statement indicates: "So far as we know...natural
selection...is the only effective agency of evolution." Evolution in Action, p.
36.
He is disputed on this by another one of the heavyweights in the field, Dr.
Ernst Mayr: "Natural selection is no longer regarded as an all-or-none process
but rather as a purely statistical concept." Animal Species, p. 7.
These opposite views are rejected by G. G. Simpson, who is regarded as the
leading interpreter of the theory today. He said, "The search for the cause of
evolution has been abandoned. It is now clear that evolution has no single
cause." The Geography of Evolution, p. 17.
By the way, when you read about the great unity and agreement which exists
among the scientists regarding evolution, don't believe a word of it. Each one
is busily experimenting with new speculative possibilities as to how the changes
took place and then abandoning them as they appear more and more ridiculous. The
one basic tenet they do agree on is that there was no divine fiat creation as
described in the Bible.
But come back a moment to the matter of natural selection. What is the
evidence that it can actually reproduce all the changes involved in the
transition from amoebae to man? Is there scientific proof that it can even make
one small change? When it comes right down to answering those questions, the
spokesmen for evolution do some of the fanciest footwork in semantics you ever
saw and make some of the most amazing admissions.
Even though Simpson supports natural selection as a factor, he recognizes the
scarcity of evidence in these words: "It might be argued that the theory is
quite unsubstantiated and has status only as a speculation." Major Features, pp.
118, 119.
But listen to Huxley's circular reasoning on it. He says: "On the basis of
our present knowledge, natural selection is bound to produce genetic
adaptations: and genetic adaptations are thus presumptive evidence for the
efficiency of natural selection." Evolution in Action, p. 48.
Did you follow that gem of logic? His proof for natural selection is
adaptation or change in the organism, but the change is produced by natural
selection! In other words: A=B; therefore B=A. His "proof" proves nothing. Were
the changes produced by natural selection, or did he invent natural selection to
explain the changes? It is just as likely that the changes produced the natural
selection theory. The ludicrous thing is that even the changes from species to
species have never been verified. As we have shown already, there is not one
shred of fossil evidence or living evidence that any species has changed into
another. So Huxley's proof for natural selection are changes which never
happened, and the changes which never happened are offered as proof for natural
selection. Surely this is the most vacuous logic to be found in a science
textbook.
But let us continue with Sir Julian's explanation about the reliability of
this natural selection process: "To sum up, natural selection converts
randomness into direction and blind chance into apparent purpose. It operates
with the aid of time to produce improvements in the machinery of living, and in
the process generates results of a more than astronomical improbability which
could have been achieved in no other way." Evolution in Action, pp. 54, 55.
Don't miss the force of that last sentence. The evolutionary changes wrought
by natural selection are "astronomically improbable," but because our friend
Huxley sees no other way for it to be done, he believes in the astronomically
improbable. Poor man! He is wrong when he said the complex order of life today
could have been achieved in no other way. God created the wonders of cell and
gene and all the millions of processes which leave the Nobel Prize winners
baffled.
But since Sir Julian doesn't believe in a divine creation, he has to invent a
miracle-working process to explain the existence of these complex creatures -
who obviously got here somehow. To illustrate the omnipotence of his "natural
selection" god, Huxley computed the odds against such a process. The
computations were done on the likelihood of every favorable evolutionary factor
being able to produce a horse. Now keep in mind that this is all a chance
development through the operation of nature, time, mutation, and natural
selection. In his book Evolution in Action, Huxley gave the odds this way: "The
figure 1 with three million naughts after it: and that would take three large
volumes of about 500 pages each, just to print!...No one would bet on anything
so improbable happening; and yet it has happened." p. 46.
We commented before about the faith of evolutionists to believe in the
impossible. Since this figure of compound probability is effectively zero, how
can a scientific mind, in the absence of any demonstrable evidence, be so
dogmatic in defending his theory? Why did Huxley employ a mathematical formula
to illustrate the impossibility of his theory working? Perhaps he used the
figures to accent his personal testimony. Just as born-again Christians seek
occasions to bear their personal testimony of faith in Christ, Huxley demolishes
the scientific possibilities of his theory in order to magnify the personal
faith aspect of his personal testimony for the god evolution.
Marshall and Sandra Hall in their book The Truth - God or Evolution? share
their reaction to Huxley's absurd faith in the chance production of a horse. It
will provide a fitting climax of proof that evolution indeed flunked the science
test. "And, let us remind you who find such odds ridiculous (even if you are
reassured by Mr. Huxley), that this figure was calculated for the evolution of a
horse! How many more volumes of zeros would be required by Mr. Huxley to produce
a human being? And then you would have just one horse and one human being and,
unless the mathematician wishes to add in the probability for the evolution of
all the plants and animals that are necessary to support a horse and a man, you
would have a sterile world where neither could have survived any stage of its
supposed evolution! What have we now - the figure 1 followed by a thousand
volumes of zeros? Then add another thousand volumes for the improbability of the
earth having all the necessary properties for life built into it. And add
another thousand volumes for the improbability of the sun, and the moon, and the
stars. Add other thousands for the evolution of all the thoughts that man can
have, all the objective and subjective reality that ebbs and flows in us like
part of the pulsebeat of an inscrutable cosmos!
"Add them all in and you long ago stopped talking about rational thought,
much less scientific evidence. Yet, Simpson, Huxley, Dobzhansky, Mayr, and
dozens of others continue to tell us that is the way it had to be! They have
retreated from all the points which ever lent any semblance of credibility to
the evolutionary theory. Now they busy themselves with esoteric mathematical
formulations based on population genetics, random drift, isolation, and other
ploys which have a probability of accounting for life on earth of minus zero!
They clutter our libraries, and press on the minds of people everywhere an
animated waxen image of a theory that has been dead for over a decade.
"Evolution has no claim whatsoever to being a science. It is time all this
nonsense ceased. It is time to bury the corpse. It is time to shift the books to
the humorous fiction section of the libraries." pp. 39, 40.
These examples of evolutionary folly are only the tip of an iceberg, but they
reassure us that we have no cause to be embarrassed for our creationist faith.
Millions of Christians have been intimidated by the high-sounding technical
language of educated evolutionists, many of whom are vitriolic in their attacks
on special creation. What we do need is more information on exposing the
loopholes in the evolutionary theory; its base is so riddled with unscientific
inconsistencies, often concealed under the gobbledygook of scientific jargon.
To follow our ancestry back through the sons of Adam, "who was the son of
God," is so much more satisfying than to search through dismal swamps for
bleeping monad forebears. The human race has dropped, even in our lifetime,
several degrees deeper into moral perversion and violent disorder. Humanists
cite our animal ancestry as an excuse for much of this bizarre behavior. Why
blame people for action dictated by their bestial genes and chromosomes? This
rationalization, like a temporary insanity plea, provides license for further
irresponsible conduct. The true cause for evil and the true remedy for it is
found only in the Word of God. Sin has defaced the image of God in man, and only
a personal encounter with the perfect Saviour will bring a reversal.
If a fair maiden kisses a frog which instantly changes into a handsome prince, we would call it a fairy tale. But if the frog takes 40 million years to turn into a prince, we call it evolution.
Home | Greetings | Who We Are | Helpful Info | Rest Room | Search | Contact Us |